100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Atheism and the Law | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
That sounds like an awful lot of Christian Right rationalization going on. Im sticking with Jefferson's actual words. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said You are simply attempting to "redefine terms" like you folks very often do with the bible itself. redifine terms ?...the Supreme Court did that...not me... the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948) prior to 1984...it was finally rectified...in 1984... I find it very difficult to believe that someone can "clarify what one meant" when the person, who's words are getting "clarified" has died. exactly !!...they " clearified "...in 1947...and...they " clearified "...in 1984...whose to say which decision is right or wrong... Well the Supreme Court would appear to primarily be basing their decisions on Jefferson's original words. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 01/03/09 09:18 AM
|
|
That sounds like an awful lot of Christian Right rationalization going on. Im sticking with Jefferson's actual words. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said You are simply attempting to "redefine terms" like you folks very often do with the bible itself. redifine terms ?...the Supreme Court did that...not me... the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948) prior to 1984...it was finally rectified...in 1984... I find it very difficult to believe that someone can "clarify what one meant" when the person, who's words are getting "clarified" has died. exactly !!...they " clearified "...in 1947...and...they " clearified "...in 1984...whose to say which decision is right or wrong... Well actually the founders did not take sides...that was the point for those who actually believe in free speech for ALL. Right?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 01/03/09 10:01 AM
|
|
That sounds like an awful lot of Christian Right rationalization going on. Im sticking with Jefferson's actual words. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said You are simply attempting to "redefine terms" like you folks very often do with the bible itself. redifine terms ?...the Supreme Court did that...not me... the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948) prior to 1984...it was finally rectified...in 1984... I find it very difficult to believe that someone can "clarify what one meant" when the person, who's words are getting "clarified" has died. Besides, what Jefferson was saying was pretty dam clear. Did you even read that excerpt from his letter to the Baptists? How can you simply rationalize that away? He was explicit. Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Jefferson lets build up that wall!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like an awful lot of Christian Right rationalization going on. Im sticking with Jefferson's actual words. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said You are simply attempting to "redefine terms" like you folks very often do with the bible itself. redifine terms ?...the Supreme Court did that...not me... the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948) prior to 1984...it was finally rectified...in 1984... I find it very difficult to believe that someone can "clarify what one meant" when the person, who's words are getting "clarified" has died. Besides, what Jefferson was saying was pretty dam clear. Did you even read that excerpt from his letter to the Baptists? How can you simply rationalize that away? He was explicit. Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. exactly...read it again...he wants Religion to be practiced everywhere...and NOT use government to force their beliefs on people...in other words...let everyone practice anything they want...wherever they want...and...keep the government separate... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giocamo
on
Sat 01/03/09 10:29 AM
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...and...no Gods...which is what's happening... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Jefferson lets build up that wall! Lets all pray now, that the wall will be built.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...no Gods... That sounds rather like a Christian wanting to FORCE his beliefs on others which is EXACTLY what Jefferson wanted to prevent. We know he was a Deist and not a Christian. Few can successfully downplay that point anymore. The court NEVER said NO to Christmas. They said no to you Christians pushing your beliefs down the throats of our nations' citizens that dont BUY INTO THE CHRIST THING. They never said no to Christmas. They said no to SIGNAGE in thoroughfares that are public access to EVERYONE. "Happy Holidays" is a term that is all inclusive and does not favor one spirituality over another. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 01/03/09 10:33 AM
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...no Gods... The public square belongs to the public and to the people, not to any religion that decides they want to put up a nativity scene. How do you think you would feel if someone insisted on erecting a statue of some Egyptian God, or of Satan in the public square? How about a tribute to Allah? How would you feel about that? The public square is Government property ... government property belongs to the people. All the people are not Christians and all the people do not want to see a nativity scene on their public square!! Get that into your head please. It is very simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...no Gods... That sounds rather like a Christian wanting to FORCE his beliefs on others which is EXACTLY what Jefferson wanted to prevent. We know he was a Deist and not a Christian. Few can successfully downplay that point anymore. The court NEVER said NO to Christmas. They said no to you Christians pushing your beliefs down the throats of our nations' citizens that dont BUY INTO THE CHRIST THING. They never said no to Christmas. They said no to SIGNAGE in thoroughfares that are public access to EVERYONE. "Happy Holidays" is a term that is all inclusive and does not favor one spirituality over another. how letting ALL religions and ALL gods be worshipped is forcing Christian beliefs on people is beyond me...I give up...have a great day... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because BEFORE they put a stop to that lunacy you could not walk 15 feet in a downtown public shopping area without a bunch of "Merry Christmas" bombastic advertising assaulting you. If it could punch, people would have been walking out of there with black eyes.
Thats why. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...no Gods... That sounds rather like a Christian wanting to FORCE his beliefs on others which is EXACTLY what Jefferson wanted to prevent. We know he was a Deist and not a Christian. Few can successfully downplay that point anymore. The court NEVER said NO to Christmas. They said no to you Christians pushing your beliefs down the throats of our nations' citizens that dont BUY INTO THE CHRIST THING. They never said no to Christmas. They said no to SIGNAGE in thoroughfares that are public access to EVERYONE. "Happy Holidays" is a term that is all inclusive and does not favor one spirituality over another. how letting ALL religions and ALL gods be worshipped is forcing Christian beliefs on people is beyond me...I give up...have a great day... Well I don't think there would be room for all of them for one thing. For another thing, atheists would object to their public square being cluttered with all that nonsense. You saw what happened to their little posting of thier beliefs. It got all kinds of backlash. Just keep that stuff on your own property and your church's property. Stop trying to sell it to the public. Geeeeze. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right really pretty simple and yet add religion and nothing is simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what are you arguing exactly? Yes he wanted a SEPARATION of Church and state. I feel that is a wonderful idea and it is absolutely imperative to protect all of our rights jointly. Christians, atheist, all. What is you point of contention exactly? I'm not really arguing...the point I'm trying to make is that when the courts say no to Christmas trees in the public square...or...no to Nativity scenes in the public square...they're doing exactly what Jefferson said not to do...was getting the government involved...if you read your last post...when he says...wall of separation ...he means...keep religion and government separate...which we are NOT doing...when the courts inject their decisions...all religions and all gods should be worshiped in the public square...not...NO religion...no Gods... That sounds rather like a Christian wanting to FORCE his beliefs on others which is EXACTLY what Jefferson wanted to prevent. We know he was a Deist and not a Christian. Few can successfully downplay that point anymore. The court NEVER said NO to Christmas. They said no to you Christians pushing your beliefs down the throats of our nations' citizens that dont BUY INTO THE CHRIST THING. They never said no to Christmas. They said no to SIGNAGE in thoroughfares that are public access to EVERYONE. "Happy Holidays" is a term that is all inclusive and does not favor one spirituality over another. how letting ALL religions and ALL gods be worshipped is forcing Christian beliefs on people is beyond me...I give up...have a great day... Yes it's like beating a dead horse... LOL They just want to squash any free speech of those they disagree with is all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's like beating a dead horse... LOL They just want to squash any free speech of those they disagree with is all. "They"..."them"..."Those"... Bwah hahahahahah!!!!yep! uh huh! hmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's like beating a dead horse... LOL They just want to squash any free speech of those they disagree with is all. "They"..."them"..."Those"... Bwah hahahahahah!!!!yep! uh huh! hmmmm... Poor babies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's like beating a dead horse... LOL They just want to squash any free speech of those they disagree with is all. "They"..."them"..."Those"... Bwah hahahahahah!!!!yep! uh huh! hmmmm... I notice how nasty you get too at anything you don't like to hear. More smallmindedness??? I really don't expect much more from some around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's like beating a dead horse... LOL They just want to squash any free speech of those they disagree with is all. "They"..."them"..."Those"... Bwah hahahahahah!!!!yep! uh huh! hmmmm... I notice how nasty you get too at anything you don't like to hear. More smallmindedness??? I really don't expect much more from some around here. Nasty???? nah.... direct, and clear... in MY PERSPECTIVE, is all... nasty... is your filters seeing that.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I notice how nasty you get too at anything you don't like to hear. More smallmindedness??? I really don't expect much more from some around here. Wow Jess642, did you teach Quick how to get nasty at anything she hears that she doesn't like? Reckon she just joined the ranks of the small minded?  |
|
|
|
|
